Solaris Review Essay Example

Solaris Review Paper Essay on Solaris Stanislaw Lem a wonderful writer. Fiction called I do not dare. He futurist, philosopher, in short, who is anything but fiction. What with the fact that the action does not take place on Earth and the space station Before researchers should interesting problems -. To establish contact with the planet, the only person that is a reasonable ocean. The ocean, in turn, also not against the establishment of any relations, but it and the people speak different languages. Here it is a likelihood of exposure not an invasion of Martians or other space monsters, and a lack of understanding, which in our real life is quite enough. This tells the life story of the main character who is guilty of the death of the woman he loved. People irradiated ocean, and he replied embodies the reality of their most secret dreams. But what we fear more than the fact that the dream will come true, and it turns out that this is not what you wanted. That is why an epidemic of madness covers station. According to her roam the creation of the ocean: replicas of those who wanted to see the heroes of whom dreamed of. They did not destroy the normal way. Space creatures resembling Earth. What could be worse We will write a custom essay sample on Solaris Review specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Solaris Review specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Solaris Review specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer A particularly hits the last scene: a reasonable ocean stretches its tentacles to people, calling for dialogue. I know that Lem did not like the film by Andrei Tarkovsky in his novel. Tarkovsky Chris Kelvin in the final sees his home, he, like the prodigal son returned to his own home. Lem takes the characters in the space provided and Tarkovsky sees space on Earth.

What Half Life Means for Evolution

What Half Life Means for Evolution Perhaps the most widely used evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection is the fossil record. The fossil record may be incomplete and may never fully completed, but there are still many clues to evolution and how it happens within the fossil record. One way that helps scientists place fossils into the correct era on the geologic time scale is by using radiometric dating. Also called absolute dating, scientists use the decay of radioactive elements within the fossils or the rocks around the fossils to determine the age of the organism that was preserved. This technique relies on the property of half-life. What Is Half-Life? Half-life is defined as the time it takes for one-half of a radioactive element to decay into a daughter isotope. As radioactive isotopes of elements decay, they lose their radioactivity and become a brand new element known as a daughter isotope. By measuring the ratio of the amount of the original radioactive element to the daughter isotope, scientists can determine how many half-lives the element has undergone and from there can figure out the absolute age of the sample. The half-lives of several radioactive isotopes are known and are used often to figure out the age of newly found fossils. Different isotopes have different half-lives and sometimes more than one present isotope can be used to get an even more specific age of a fossil. Below is a chart of commonly used radiometric isotopes, their half-lives, and the daughter isotopes they decay into. Example of How to Use Half-Life Lets say you found a fossil you think to be a human skeleton. The best radioactive element to use to date human fossils is Carbon-14. There are several reasons why, but the main reasons is that Carbon-14 is a naturally occurring isotope in all forms of life and its half-life is about 5730 years, so we are able to use it to date more recent forms of life relative to the geologic time scale. You would need to have access to scientific instruments at this point that could measure the amount of radioactivity in the sample, so off to the lab we go! After you prepare your sample and put it into the machine, your readout says you have approximately 75% Nitrogen-14 and 25% Carbon-14. Now it is time to put those math skills to good use. At one half-life, you would have approximately 50% Carbon-14 and 50% Nitrogen-14. In other words, half (50%) of the Carbon-14 you started with has decayed into the daughter isotope Nitrogen-14. However, your readout from your radioactivity measuring instrument says you have only 25% Carbon-14 and 75% Nitrogen-14, so your fossil must have been through more than one half-life. After two half-lives, another half of your leftover Carbon-14 would have decayed into Nitrogen-14. Half of 50% is 25%, so you would have 25% Carbon-14 and 75% Nitrogen-14. This is what your readout said, so your fossil has undergone two half-lives. Now that you know how many half-lives have passed for your fossil, you need to multiply your number of half-lives by how many years are in one half-life. This gives you an age of 2 x 5730 11,460 years. Your fossil is of an organism (maybe human) that died 11,460 years ago. Commonly Used Radioactive Isotopes Parent Isotope Half-Life Daughter Isotope Carbon-14 5730 yrs. Nitrogen-14 Potassium-40 1.26 billion yrs. Argon-40 Thorium-230 75,000 yrs. Radium-226 Uranium-235 700,000 million yrs. Lead-207 Uranium-238 4.5 billion yrs. Lead-206

Bhojraj Lee Paper

Accounting Research Center, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago Who Is My Peer? A Valuation-Based Approach to the Selection of Comparable Firms Author(s): Sanjeev Bhojraj and Charles M. C. Lee Source: Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, Studies on Accounting, Entrepreneurship and E-Commerce (May, 2002), pp. 407-439 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Accounting Research Center, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/3542390 . Accessed: 15/01/2011 08:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www. jstor. org/page/info/about/policies/terms. jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . ttp://www. jstor. org/action/showPublisher? publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [emailprotected] org. Blackwell Publishing and Accounting Research Center, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Accounting Research. http://www. jstor. org Research Journalof Accounting Vol. 40 No. 2 May2002 in Printed U. S. A. Who Is My Peer? A Valuation-Based Approach to the Selection of Comparable Firms SANJEEV BHOJRAJ AND CHARLES M. C. LEE* Received4January2001;accepted4 September2001 ABSTRACT This study presents a general approach for selecting comparable firms in market-based research and equity valuation. Guided by valuation theory, we develop a warrantedmultiple for each firm, and identify peer firms as those having the closest warranted multiple. We test this approach by examining the efficacy of the selected comparable firms in predicting future (one- to three-year-ahead) enterprise-value-to-sales and price-to-book ratios. Our tests encompass the general universe of stocks as well as a sub-population of socalled new economy stocks. We conclude that comparable firms selected in this manner offer sharp improvements over comparable firms selected on the basis of other techniques. 1. Introduction Accounting-based market multiples are easily the most common technique in equity valuation. These multiples are ubiquitous in the reports and recommendations of sell-side financial analysts, and are widely used in *Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University. We thank Bhaskaran Swaminathan, as well as workshop participants at the Australian Graduate School of ManConferagement, Cornell University, Indiana University, the 2001 Journal ofAccountingResearch ence, the 2001 HKUST Summer Symposium, Syracuse University, and an anonymous referee, for helpful comments. The data on analyst earnings forecasts are provided by I/B/E/S International Inc. 407 of of 2002 Copyright University Chicagoon behalfof the Institute Professional Accounting, ? , 408 S. BHOJRAJ C. M. C. LEE AND investment bankers fairness opinions (e. g. , DeAngelo [1990]). They also appear in valuations associated with initial public offerings (IPOs), leveraged buyout transactions, seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), and other merger and acquisition (M) activities. Even advocates of projected discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation methods frequently resort to using market multiples when estimating terminal values. Despite their widespread usage, little theory is available to guide the application of these multiples. With a few exceptions, the accounting and finance literature contains little evidence on how or why certain individual multiples, or certain comparable firms, should be selected in specific contexts. Some practitioners even suggest that the selection of comparable firms is essentially an art form that should be left to professionals. 2 Yet the degree of subjectivityinvolved in their application is discomforting from a scientific perspective. Moreover, the aura of mystique that surrounds this technique limits its coverage in financial analysis courses, and ultimately threatens its credibility as a serious alternative in equity valuation. In this study, we re-examine the theoretical underpinnings for the use of market multiples in equity valuation, and develop a systematic approach for the selection of comparable firms. Our premise is that the popularity of market-based valuation multiples stems from their function as a classic satisficingdevice (Simon [1997]). In using multiples to value firms, analysts forfeit some of the benefits of a more complete, but more complex, pro forma analysis. In exchange, they obtain a convenient valuation heuristic that produces satisfactory results without incurring extensive time and effort costs. In fact, we believe it is possible to compensate for much of the information these multiples fail to capture through the judicious selection of comparable firms. Our aim is to develop a more systematic technique for doing so, through an appeal to valuation theory. Specifically, we argue that the choice of comparable firms should be a function of the variables that drive cross-sectional variation in a given valuation multiple. For example, in the case of the enterprise-value-to-sales multiple, comparable firms should be selected on the basis of variables that drive cross-sectional differences in this ratio, including expected profitability, growth, and the cost-of-capital. 3 In this spirit, we use variables nominated by valuation theory and recent advances in estimating the implied cost-of-capital (i. . , Gebhardt, Lee, and Swaminathan [2001]) to develop a 1 For example, Kim and Ritter [1999] discuss the use of multiples in valuing IPOs. Kaplan and Ruback [1995] examine alternative valuation approaches, including multiples, in highly levered transactions. 2For example, Golz [1986], Woodcock (1992), and McCarthy (1999). We use the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (EVS) rather than the price-to-sales (PS) ratio because the former is conceptually s uperior when firms are differentially levered (we thank the referee for pointing this out). We also report results for the price-to-book (PB) ratio. We focus on these two ratios because of their applicability to loss firm, which are particularly important among the so-called new economy (tech, biotech, and telecommunication) stocks. However, our approach is general, and can be applied to any of the widely used valuation multiples. WHO IS MYPEER? 409 warrantedmultiple for each firm based on large sample estimations. We then identify a firms peers as those firms having the closest warranted valuation multiple. Our procedures result in two end products. First, we produce warranted multiples for each firmn-that is, a warranted enterprise-value-to-sales (WEVS)and a warranted price-to-book (WPB)ratio. These warranted multiples are based on systematic variations in the observed multiples in crosssection over large samples. The warranted multiples themselves are useful for valuation purposes, because they incorporate the effect of cross-sectional variations in firm growth, profitability, and cost-of-capital. Second, by ranking firms according to their warranted multiples, we generate a list of peer firms for each target firm. For investors and analysts who prefer to conduct equity valuation using market multiples, this approach suggests a more objective method for identifying comparable firms. For researchers, our approach suggests a new technique for selecting control firms, and for isolating a variable of particular interest. Recent methodology studies have demonstrated that characteristic-matched control samples provide more reliable inferences in market-based research (e. . , Barber and Lyon [1997], Lyon et al. [1999]). Our study extends this line of research by presenting a more precise technique for matching sample firms based on characteristics identified by valuation theory. Our approach is designed to accommodate both profitable and loss firms, which have become pervasive in the so called new economy. In short, the methodology developed in this paper can be useful whenever the choice of control firms plays a prominent role in the research design of a market-related study. We test our approach by examining the efficacy of the selected comparable firms in predicting future (one- to three-year-ahead) EVSand PB ratios. 4Our tests encompass the general universe of stocks as well as a sub-population of new economy stocks from the tech, biotech, and telecommunication sectors. Our results show that comparable firms selected in this manner offer sharp improvements over comparable firms selected on the basis of other techniques, including industry and size matches. The improvement is most pronounced among the so-called new economy stocks. The main message from this study is that the choice of comparable firms can be made more systematic and less subjective through the application of valuation theory. In the case of the EVSmultiple, our approach almost triples the adjusted r-squares obtained from using simply industry or industry-size matched selections. The PB multiple is more difficult to predict in general, but our approach still more than doubles the adjusted r-square relative to industry or industry-size matched selections. Interestingly, we find that using the actual multiples from the best comparable firms is generally better than using the warranted multiple itself. Moreover, the choice of comparable 4We forecast future multiples because we do not regard the current stock price as necessarily the best benchmark for assessing valuation accuracy. As discussed later, forecasting future multiples is not equivalent to forecasting future prices or returns. 410 s. BHOJRAJAND C. M. C. LEE firms is, to some extent, dependent on the market multiple under consideration-the best firms for the EVSratio are not necessarily the best firms for the PB ratio. While we illustrate our approach using these two ratios, this technique can be generalized to other common market multiples, including: EBITDA/TEV, E/P, CF/P, and others. In the next section, we further motivate our study and discuss its relation to the existing literature. In section 3, we develop the theory that underpins our analysis. In section 4, we discuss sample selection, research design and estimation procedures. Section 5 reports our empirical results, and section 6 concludes with a discussion of the implications of our findings. . Motivationand Relationto PriorLiterature There are at least three situations in which comparable firms are useful. First, in conducting fundamental analysis, we often need to make forecasts of sales growth rates, profit margins, and asset efficiency ratios. In these settings, we typically appeal to comparable firms from the same industry as a source of reference. Second, in multiples-based valuation, the market multiples of comparable firms are u sed to infer the market value of the target firm. Third, in empirical research, academics seek out comparable firms as a research design device for isolating a variable of particular interest. Our paper is focused primarily on the second and third needs for comparable firms. 5 Given their widespread popularity among practitioners, market multiples based valuation has been the subject of surprisingly few academic studies. Three recent studies that provide some insights on this topic are Kim and Ritter (KR;[1999]), Liu, Nissim, and Thomas (LNT; [1999]), and Baker and Ruback (BR; [1999]). All three examine the relative accuracy of alternative multiples in different settings. KR uses alternative multiples to value initial public offers (IPOs), while LNT and BR investigate the more general context of valuation accuracy relative to current stock prices. KRand LNT both find that forward earnings perform much better than historical earnings. LNT shows that in terms of accuracy relative to current prices, the performance of forward earnings is followed by that of historical earnings measures, cash flow measures, book value, and finally, sales. In addition, Baker and Ruback [1999] discuss the advantages of using harmonic means-that is, the inverse of the average of inversed ratios-when aggregating common market multiples. None of these studies address the choice of comparable firms beyond noting the usefulness of industry groupings. 5 Our technique is not directly relevant to the first situation, because it does not match firms on the basis of a single attribute (such as sales growth, or profit margin). Instead, our approach matches firms on the basis of a set of variables suggested by valuation theory. Our paper also does not address the trivial case whereby a firm is its own comparable. As we point out later, in multiples-based valuation of public firms, a firms own lagged multiple is often the most useful empirical proxy for its current multiple. WHO IS MYPEER? 411 Closer to this study are three prior studies that either investigate the effect of comparable firm selection on multiple-based valuation, or examine the determinants cross-sectional variations in certain multiples. Boatsman and Baskin [1981] compare the accuracy of value estimated based on earningsto-price (EP) multiples of firms from the same industry. They find that, relative to randomly chosen firms, valuation errors are smaller when comparable firms are matched on the basis of historical earnings growth. Similarly, Zarowin [1990] examines the cross-sectional determinants of EPratios. He shows forecasted growth in long-term earnings is a dominant source of variation in these ratios. Other factors, such as risk, historical earnings growth, forecasted short-term growth, and differences in accounting methods, seem to be less important. Finally,Alford [1992] examines the relative valuation accuracy of EPmultiples when comparable firms are selected on the basis of industry, size, leverage, and earnings growth. He finds that valuation errors decline when the industry definition used to select comparable firms is narrowed to twoor three-digit SIC codes, but that there is no further improvement when a four-digit classification is used. He also finds that after controlling for industry membership, further controls for firm size, leverage, and earnings growth do not reduce valuation errors. Several stylized facts emerge from these studies. First, the choice of which multiple to use affects accuracy results. In terms of accuracy relative to current prices, forecasted earnings perform relativelywell (KR,LNT); the priceto-sales and price-to-book ratios perform relatively poorly (LNT). Second, industry membership is important in selecting comparable firms (Alford [1992], LNT, KR). The relation between historical growth rates and EP ratios is unclear, with studies reporting conflicting results (Zarowin [1999], Alford [1992], Boatsman and Baskin [1981]), but forecasted growth rates are important (Zarowin [1999]). Other measures, including risk-basedmetrics (leverage and size) do not seem to provide much additional explanatory power for E/P ratios. Our study is distinct from these prior studies in several respects. First, our approach is more general, and relies more heavily on valuation theory. This theory guides us in developing a regression model that estimates a warranted multiple for each firm. We then define a firms peers as those firms with the closest warranted market multiple to the target firm, as identified by our model. The advantage of a regression-based approach is that it allows us to simultaneously control for the effect of various explanatory variables. For example, some firms might have higher current profitability, but lower future growth prospects, and higher cost-of-capital. This approach allows us to consider the simultaneous effect of all these variables, and to place appropriate weights on each variable based on empirical relations established in large samples. Our empirical results illustrate the advantage of this approach. Contrary to the mixed results in prior studies, we find that factors related to profitability, growth, and risk, are strongly and consistently correlated with the EVS 412 S. BHOJRAJ C. M. C. LEE AND and PB ratios. Collectively, factors that relate to profitability, growth, and risk, play an important role in explaining cross-sectional variations of these multiples. In fact, we find that variables related to firm-specific profitability, forecasted growth and risk are more important than industry membership and firm size in explaining a firms future EVSand PB ratios. Second, we employ recent advances in the empirical estimation of cost-ofcapital (i. e. , Gebhardt et al. [2001]) to help identify potential explanatory variables for estimating our model of warranted market multiples. The risk metrics examined in prior studies are relatively simple, and the results are mixed. We follow the technique in Gebhardt et al. [2001] to secure additional explanatory variables that are associated with cross-sectional determinants of a firms implied cost-of-capital. Several of these factors turn out to be important in explaining EVSand PB ratios. Third, we do not assume that the current stock price of a firm is the best estimate of firm value. Prior studies compare the valuation derived by the multiples to a stocks current price to determine the valuation error. In effect, these studies assume that the current stock price is the appropriate normative benchmark by which to judge a multiples performance. Under this assumption, it is impossible to derive an independent valuation using multiples that is useful for identifying over- or under-valued stocks. Our less stringent assumption of market efficiency is that a firms current price is a noisy proxy for the true, but unobservable intrinsic value, defined as the present value of expected dividends. Moreover, due to arbitrage, price converges to value over time. As a result, price and various alternative estimates of value based on accounting fundamentals will be co-integrated over time. 6 Under this assumption, we estimate a warrantedmultiple that differs from the actual multiple implicit in the current price. Consistent with this philosophy, we test the efficacy of alternative estimated multiples by comparing their predictive power for a firms future multiples (e. g. , its one-, two-, or three-year-ahead EVSand PB ratios). Finally,our approach can be broadly applied to loss firms, including many new economy stocks. Prior studies that examine comparable firms (e. g. , Alford [1992], Boatsman and Baskin [1981], and Zarowin [1999]) focus solely on the EP ratio. A limitation of these studies is that they do not pertain to loss firms. This limitation has become more acute in recent years, as many technology, biotechnology, and telecommunication firms have reported negative earnings. 6 For a more formal statistical model of this co-integrated relationship between price and alternative estimates of fundamental value, see, Lee, Myers, and Swaminathan [1999]. 7 Note that forecasting future multiples is different from forecasting future prices or returns. In the current context, forecasting future price involves two steps: forecasting future multiples, and forecasting future fundamentals (e. g. , sales or book value per share). Our main interest is in the stability of the multiples relation, and not in forecasting fundamentals. An example of fundamental analysis that focuses on forecasting future fundamentals is Ou and Penman [1989]. WHO IS MY PEER? 413 Appendix A provides an indication of the magnitude of the problem. This appendix reports descriptive statistics for a sample of 3,515 firms from NYSE/AMEX/NASDAQ as of 5/29/2000. To be included, a firm must be U. S. domiciled (i. e. , not an ADR), have a market capitalization of over $100 million, and fundamental data for the trailing 12 months (i. . , not a recent IPO). Based on aggregate net income from the most recent four quarters, we divide the sample into profitable firms (78% of sample) and loss firms (22% of sample). Panel A reports the percentage of these firms that have positive EBIT,Operating Income, EBITDA, Gross Margin, Sales, One-year-ahead forecasted earnings (FY1), and book value. This panel shows that only 40% of the loss firms have positive operating income, only 47% have positive EBITDA, and only 34% have positive FY1forecasts. In fact, only 87% of the loss firms have positive gross margins. The only reliably positive accounting measures are sales (100%) and book value (94%). Clearly, these loss firms are difficult to value. However, they are also difficult to ignore. Panel B reports the distribution of realized returns in the past six months (11/31/99 to 5/29/00) separately for the profit firms and loss firms. The returns for the loss firms have higher mean (19. 6% versus 7. 8%), higher standard deviation (111. 3% versus 42. 3%), and fatter tails. As a group, the loss firms appear to be a high-stake game that constitutes a substantial proportion of the universe of traded stocks in the United States. Our study uses the two most reliably positive multiples (EVSand PB). Liu, Nissim, and Thomas [1999] show that these two ratios are relatively poor performers in terms of their valuation accuracy. We demonstrate that by choosing an appropriate set of comparable firms, the accuracy of these ratios can be improved sharply. In particular, we demonstrate the incremental usefulness of the technique for a sub-population of new economy stocks from the technology, telecom, and biotechnology sectors. 3. Development the Theory of The valuation literature discusses two broad approaches to estimating shareholder value. The first is direct valuation, in which firm value is estimated directly from its expected cash flows without appeal to the current price of other firms. Most direct valuations are based on projected dividends and/or earnings, and involve a present value computation of future cash flow forecasts. Common examples are the dividend discount model (DDM), the discounted cash flow (DCF) model, the residual income model (RIM), or some other variant. 8 The second is a relative valuation approach in We do not discuss liquidation valuation, in which a firm is valued at the breakup value of its assets. Commonly used in valuing real estate and distressed firms, this approach is not appropriate for most going concerns. 414 s. BHOJRAJAND C. M. C. LEE which firm value estimates are obtained by examining the pricing of comparableassets. This approach involves applying an accounting-based market multiple (e. g. , price-to-earnings, price-to-book, or price-to-sales ratios) from the comparable firm(s) to our accounting number to secure a value estimate. In relative valuation, an analyst applies the market multiple from a comparable firm to a target firms corresponding accounting number: Our estimated price = (Their market multiple) X (Our accounting number). In so doing, the analyst treats the accounting number in question as a summary statistic for the value of the firm. Assuming our firm in its current state deservesthe same market multiple as the comparable firm, this procedure allows us to estimate what the market would pay for our firm. Which firm(s) deservethe same multiple as our target firm? Valuation theory helps to resolve this question. In fact, explicit expressions for most of the most commonly used valuation multiples can be derived using little more than the dividend discount model and a few additional assumptions. For example, the residual income formula allows us to re-express the discounted dividend model in terms of the price-to-book ratio:10 * PB, Et[(ROEt+i re)Bt+i-l] (1 + re)i Bt i=1 (1) Bt where Pt* is the present value of expected dividends at time t, B, = book value at time t; Et [. ] = expectation based on information available at time t; re = cost of equity capital; and ROEt+i = the after-taxreturn on book equity for period t + i. This equation shows that a firms price-to-book ratio is a function of its expected ROEs, its cost-of-capital, and its future growth rate in book value. Firms that have similar price-to-book ratios should have present values of future residual income (the infinite sum in the right-hand-side of equation (1)) that are close to each other. In the same spirit, it is not difficult to derive the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio in terms of subsequent profit margins, growth rates, and the cost of capital. In the case ofa stable growth firm, the enterprise-value-to-salesratio can be expressed as: EV7 Et(PMxkx(1 + g)) _ (r- g) St where EVZ is total enterprise value (equity plus debt) at time t, St = total sales at time t; Et[. ] = expectation based on information available at 9 A third approach, not discussed here, is contingent claim valuation based on option pricing theory. Designed for pricing traded assets with finite lives, this approach encounters significant measurement problems when applied to equity securities. See Schwartz and Moon [2000] and Kellogg and Charnes [2000] for examples of how this approach can be applied to new economy stocks. 10See Feltham and Ohlson [1995] or Lee [1999] and the references therein for a discussion of this model. See Damodaran [1994; page 245] for a similar expression. WHO IS MYPEER? 415 time t; PM is operating profit margin (earnings before interest); k is a constant payout ratio (dividends and debt servicing costs as a percentage of earnings; alternatively, it is sometimes called one minus the plow-back rate); r = weighted average cost of capital; and g is a constant earnings growth rate. In the more general case, we can model the firms growth in terms of an initial period (say n years) of high growth, followed by a period of more stable growth in perpetuity. Under this assumption, a firms enterprise-valueto-sales ratio can be expressed as: (1+ EVt St EtPMxkx rL? gl)(1- ((1 + gg)n/(l r + r)n)) (1 + gi) n(l + g2) 1 (1+g1)n(1+ g2) nir- (1+r g ]ii (3) where EV7 is the total enterprise value (debt plus equity) at time t, St = total sales at time t; Et[. = expectation based on information available at time t; PM is operating profit margin; k is a constant payout ratio; r = cost of capital; gi is the initial earnings growth rate, which is applied for n years; and g2 is the constant growth rate applicable from period n+ 1 onwards. Equation (3) shows that a firms warranted enterprise-value-to-sales ratio is a function of its expected operating profit margin (PM), payout ratio (k), expected growth rates (gi and g2), and cost of capital (re). If the market value of equity and d ebt approximates the present value of expected cash flows, these variables should explain a ignificant portion of the cross-sectional variation in the EVS ratio. In the tests that follow, we employ a multiple regression model to estimate the warranted EVSand PB ratios for each firm. The explanatory variables we use in the model are empirical proxies for the key elements in the right-hand side of equations (1) and (3). 4. Research Design In this section, we estimate annual regressions that attempt to explain the cross-sectional variation in the EVSand PBratios. Our goal is to develop a reasonably parsimonious model that produces a warrantedmultiple (WEVS or WPB)for each firm. These warranted multiples reflect the large sample relation between a firms EVS (or PB) ratio and variables that should explain cross-sectional variations in the ratio. The estimated WEVS(or WPB) becomes the basis of our comparable firm analysis. 4. 1 ESTIMATING THE WARRANTED RATIOS We use all firms in the intersection of (a) the merged COMPUSTATindustrial and research files, and (b) the I/B/E/S historical database of analyst earnings forecasts, excluding ADRs and REITs. We conduct our analysis as of June 30th of each year for the period 1982-1998. To be included 416 AND s. BHOJRAJ C. M. C. LEE n the analysis a firm must have at least one consensus forecast of longterm growth available during the 12 months endedJune 30th. In the event that more than one consensus forecast was made in any year, the most recent forecast is used. We use accounting information for each firm as of the most recent fiscal year end date, and stock prices as of the end of June. To facilitate estimation of a r obust model, we drop firms with prices below $3 per share and sales below $100 million. We eliminate firms with negative book value (defined as common equity), and any firms with missing price or accounting data needed for the estimation regression. 2We require that all firms belong in an industry (based on two-digit SIC codes) with at least five member firms. In addition we eliminate firms in the top and bottom one percent of all firms ranked by EVS, PB, Rnoa, Lev, Adjpm,and Adjgroeach year (these variables are defined below). The number of remaining firms in the sample range from 741 (in 1982) to 1,498 (in 1998). For each firm, we secure nine explanatory variables. We are guided in the choice of these variables by the valuation equations discussed earlier, and several practical implementation principles. First, we wish to construct a model that can be applied to private as well as public firms, we therefore avoid using the market value of the target firm in any of the explanatory variables. Second, in the spirit of the contextual fundamental analysis (e. g. , see Beneish, Lee, and Tarpley [2000]), we anchor our estimation procedure on specific industries. In other words, we use the mean industry market multiples as a starting point, and adjust for key firm-specific characteristics. 3 Finally, to the extent possible, we try to use similar variables for estimating EVSand PB. Our goal is to generate relatively simple models that capture the key theoretical constructs of growth, risk, and profitability. Specifically, our model includes the following variables, which are also summarized and described in more detail in Appendix B: IndevsThe harmonic mean of the enterprise-value-to-salesmultiple for all the firms with the same two-digit SIC code. For example, for the 1982 regression, this variable is the harmonic mean industry EVS as of June 1, 1982. Enterprise value is defined as total market capitalization of equity, plus book value of long-term debt. This variable controls for industrywide factors, such as profit margins and growth rates, and we expect it to be positively correlated with current year firm-specific EVS and PB ratios. Indpb-The harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio for all firms in the same industry. This variable controls for industry-wide factors that affect the PB ratio. In addition, Gebhardt et al. [2001] show firms with higher PB 12 The two exceptions are research and development expense and long-term debt. Missing data in these two fields are assigned a value of zero. More specifically, we use the harmonic means of industry EVSand PB ratios, that is, the inverse of the average of inversed ratios (see Baker and Ruback [1999]). WHO IS MYPEER? 417 ratios have lower implied costs of capital. To the extent that industries with lower implied costs-of-capital have higher market multiples, we expect this variable to be positively correlated with EVSand PB ratios. AdjpmThe industry-adjusted profit margin. We comput e this variable as the difference between the firms profit margin and the median industry profit margin. In each case, the profit margin is defined as a firms operating profit divided by its sales. Theory suggests this variable should be positively correlated with current year EVSratios. where Dum is 1 if Adjpm LosspmThisvariable is computed as Adjpm*Dum, is less than or equal to zero, and 0 otherwise. Used in conjunction with Adjpm,this variable captures the differential effect of profit margin on the P/S ratio for loss firms. Prior studies (e. g. , Hayn [1995]) show that prices (and returns) are less responsive to losses than to profits. In univariate tests, this variable should be positively correlated with EVSand PB. However, controlling for Adjpm,this variable should be negatively correlated with EVSand PB ratios. AdjgroIndustry-adjusted growth forecasts. This variable is computed as the difference between a firms consensus earnings growth forecast (from IBES) and the industry median of the same. Higher growth firms merit higher EVSand PB ratios. LevBook leverage. This variable is computed as the total long-term debt scaled by the book value of common equity. In univariate tests, Gebhardt et al. [2001] shows that firms with higher leverage have higher implied costsof-capital. However, controlling for market leverage, they find that book leverage is not significant in explaining implied cost-of-capital. We include this variable for completeness, in case it captures elements of cross-sectional risk not captured by the other variables. Rnoa-Return on net operating asset. This variable is a firms operating profit scaled by its net operating assets. Penman [2000] recommends this variable as a measure of a firms core operation profitability. In our context, having already controlled for profit margins, this variable also serves as a control for a firms asset turnover. We expect it to be positively correlated with the EVSand PB ratios. RoeReturn on equity. This variable is net income before extraordinary items scaled by the end of period common equity. Conceptually, this variable should provide a better profitability proxy in the case of the PB ratio. We use this variable in place of Rnoa as an alternative measure of profitability when conducting the PB regression. Rd-Total research and development expenditures divided by sales. Firms with higher RD expenditures tend to have understated current profitability relative to future profitability. To the extent that this variable captures profitability growth beyond the consensus earnings forecast growth rate, we expect it to be positively correlated with the EVSand PB ratios. In addition to these nine explanatory variables, we also tested three other variables-a dividend payout measure (actual dividends scaled by 418 S. BHOJRAJ AND C. M. C. LEE total assets), an asset turnover measure, and a measure of the standard deviation of the forecasted growth rate. The first two variables add little to the explanatory power of the model. The standard deviation measure (suggested by Gebhardt et al. 2001] as a determinant of the cost-ofcapital) contributed marginally, but was missing for a significant number of observations. Moreover, this measure would be unavailable for private firms. For these reasons, we excluded all three variables from our final model. To recap, our research design involves estimating a series of annual cross-sectional regressions of either the EVSor PB ratio on ei ght explanatory variables. The estimated coefficients from last years regressions are used, in conjunction with each firms current year information, to generate a prediction of the firms current and future ratio. We refer to this prediction as a firms warrantedmultiple (WEVSor WPB). This warranted multiple becomes the basis for our identification of comparable firms in subsequent tests. STATISTICS 4. 2 DESCRIPTIVE Table 1 presents annual summary statistics on the two dependent and nine explanatory variables. The overall average EVS of 1. 20 (median of 0. 94) and average PB of 2. 26 (median of 1. 84) are comparable to prior studies (e. g. , LNT, BB), although our sample size is considerably larger due to the inclusion of loss firms. This table also reveals some trends in the key variables over time. Consistent with prior studies (e. g. Frankel and Lee [1999]) we observe an increase over time in the accounting-based multiples (EVS, PB, Indps, and Indpb) and total RD expenditures (Rd). This non-stationarity in the estimated coefficients could be attributable to systematic changes in the composition of firms over time. For example, the increased importance of the RD variable could reflect the ris ing prominence of technology firms in the sample. The accounting-based rates of return (Rnoa and Roe) and book leverage (Lev) are relatively stable over time. As expected, the industry-adjustedvariables (Adjpm,Losspm,and Adjgro) have mean and median measures close to zero. Overall, this table indicates that the key input variables for our analysis make economical sense. Table 2 presents the average annual pairwise correlation coefficients between these variables. The upper triangle reports Spearman rank correlation coefficients; the lower triangle reports Pearson correlation coefficients. As expected, EVSis positively correlated with the industry enterprise-value-tosales ratio (Indevs) and price-to-book ratio (Indpb). It is also positively correlated with industry-adjusted measures of a firms profit margin (Adjpm) and expected growth rate (Adjgro). It is negatively correlated with book leverage (Lev), and positively correlated with accounting rates of return (Rnoa and Roe), as well as RD expense (Rd). To a lesser degree, EVS is also positively correlated with profit margin among loss firms (Losspm). The results are similar for the PB ratio. All the correlation coefficients WHO IS MY PEER? TABLE 1 StatisticsofEstimationVariables Summary 419 This table provides information on the mean and median of the variables used in the annual estimation regressions. All accounting variables are from the most recent fiscal year end publicly available byJune 30th. Market values are as of June 30th. EVSis the enterprise value to sales ratio, computed as the market value common equity plus long-term debt, divided by sales. PB is the price to book ratio. Indevsis the industry harmonic mean of EVSbased on two-digit SIC codes. Indpbis the industry harmonic mean of PB. Adjpmis the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales. Losspmis Adjpm* indicator variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit is margin 0 and 0 otherwise. Adjgro the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth and the industry average. Lev is the total long-term debt scaled by book value of stockholders equity. Rnoa is operating profit scaled by net operating assets. Rd is the firms RD expressed as a percentage of net sales. year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median mean median EVS 0. 3 0. 50 0. 98 0. 77 0. 84 0. 69 0. 88 0. 73 1. 07 0. 88 1. 22 1. 00 1. 09 0. 90 1. 07 0. 89 1. 09 0. 89 1. 10 0. 87 1. 15 0. 94 1. 22 1. 02 1. 20 1. 00 1. 36 1. 07 1. 49 1. 13 1. 51 1. 20 1. 59 1. 24 PB 1. 11 0. 93 1. 82 1. 48 1. 46 1. 26 1. 72 1. 46 2. 14 1. 82 2. 31 1. 92 1. 97 1. 70 2. 02 1. 70 1. 99 1. 64 1. 93 1. 54 2. 13 1. 76 2. 48 2. 04 2. 31 1. 98 2. 49 2. 08 2. 75 2. 24 2. 87 2. 41 3. 06 2. 55 Indevs Indpb Adjpm 0. 50 0. 006 0. 92 0. 000 0. 50 0. 92 1. 57 0. 76 0. 002 1. 59 0. 77 0. 000 1. 34 0. 69 0. 001 0. 000 1. 30 0. 72 0. 70 1. 45 0. 004 1. 30 0. 000 0. 72 0. 001 0. 85 1. 7 0. 000 0. 86 1. 69 0. 95 1. 95 -0. 002 0. 95 0. 000 1. 82 1. 69 0. 85 0. 002 0. 80 1. 61 0. 000 0. 84 1. 79 0. 003 0. 76 1. 63 0. 000 0. 83 1. 69 0. 002 0. 79 1. 49 0. 000 1. 65 0. 003 0. 80 1. 39 0. 000 0. 69 0. 87 1. 71 0. 005 0. 78 0. 000 1. 52 0. 90 1. 91 0. 002 0. 000 0. 86 1. 76 0. 89 0. 006 2. 02 0. 86 1. 91 0. 000 0. 95 0. 007 2. 06 0. 93 0. 000 2. 02 1. 01 0. 009 2. 18 0. 98 1. 99 0. 000 0. 005 1. 02 2. 12 1. 07 0. 000 2. 01 1. 09 0. 004 2. 20 0. 000 1. 08 2. 05 Losspm 0. 000 0. 000 -0. 003 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 -0. 002 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 -0. 007 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 -0. 03 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 -0. 002 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 -0. 002 0. 000 -0. 002 0. 000 -0. 001 0. 000 -0. 002 0. 000 -0. 003 0. 000 -0. 004 0. 000 Adjgro 0. 50 0. 00 0. 21 -0. 05 0. 44 -0. 01 0. 66 0. 00 0. 30 -0. 04 0. 18 -0. 10 0. 29 0. 00 0. 69 0. 00 0. 58 -0. 08 0. 45 -0. 12 0. 23 -0. 19 0. 55 -0. 09 0. 49 -0. 15 0. 73 0. 00 0. 40 -0. 13 0. 36 -0. 17 0. 43 0. 00 Lev 0. 45 0. 36 0. 49 0. 38 0. 43 0. 33 0. 44 0. 32 0. 50 0. 34 0. 54 0. 40 0. 56 0. 43 0. 57 0. 41 0. 61 0. 44 0. 59 0. 45 0. 59 0. 42 0. 58 0. 39 0. 58 0. 36 0. 56 0. 38 0. 58 0. 37 0. 61 0. 36 0. 63 0. 38 Rnoa 20. 85 19. 62 17. 8 16. 18 17. 85 16. 93 19. 96 18. 82 17. 58 16. 41 17. 27 16. 00 19. 05 17. 68 19. 90 18. 54 19. 77 17. 97 19. 00 16. 93 17. 86 15. 97 19. 80 17. 22 20. 08 17. 47 21. 66 18. 72 22. 19 18. 93 21. 56 18. 97 22. 84 20. 24 Roe 14. 39 14. 77 11. 88 12. 82 12. 04 13. 00 13. 49 14. 32 11. 45 12. 92 10. 63 12. 22 12. 61 12. 93 13. 90 14. 71 13. 29 13. 51 11. 91 12. 55 10. 31 11. 29 11. 87 12. 39 11. 57 12. 37 13. 48 13. 18 12. 57 13. 08 12. 46 12. 89 12. 31 12. 76 Rd 1. 23 0. 14 1. 33 0. 09 1. 51 0. 08 1. 66 0. 05 1. 75 0. 00 1. 94 0. 00 1. 83 0. 00 1. 94 0. 00 1. 86 0. 00 1. 96 0. 00 2. 03 0. 00 1. 9 0. 00 1. 90 0. 00 1. 77 0. 00 2. 01 0. 00 2. 01 0. 00 2. 25 0. 00 Pooled mean 1. 20 2. 26 median 0. 94 1. 84 0. 88 0. 81 1. 83 1. 72 0. 004 -0. 003 0. 44 0. 000 0. 000 -0. 05 0. 56 20. 00 12. 35 1. 86 0. 38 17. 96 13. 01 0. 00 are in the expected direction. Except for the correlation between Rnoa and Roe (which do not appear in the same estimation regression), none of the average pairwise correlation coefficients exceed 0. 60. These results suggest that the explanatory variables are not likely to be redundant. 420 S. BHOJRAJAND C. M. C. LEE TABLE 2 Correlation between EstimationVariables This table provides the correlation between the variables. The upper triangle reflects the Spearman correlation estimates; the lower triangle reflects the Pearson correlation coefficients. All accounting variables are based on the most recent fiscal year end information publicly available byJune 30th. Market values are as of June 30th. EVSis the enterprise value to sales ratio, computed as the market value common equity plus long-term debt, divided by sales. PB is the price to book ratio. Indevsis the industry harmonic mean of EVSbased on two-digit SIC codes. Indpbis the industry harmonic mean of PB. Adjpmis the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales. Losspmis Adjpm*indicator variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit is margin 0 and 0 otherwise. Adjgro the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth and the industry average. Lev is the total long-term debt scaled by book value of stockholders equity. Rnoa is operating profit scaled by net operating assets. Rd is the firms RD expressed as a percentage of net sales. Average Correlation (Pearson/Spearman) EVS EVS PB Indevs PB 0. 52 Indevs Indpb 0. 51 0. 16 0. 09 0. 33 0. 35 0. 35 -0. 06 -0. 02 0. 04 0. 02 -0. 01 -0. 05 0. 08 -0. 09 -0. 02 0. 25 0. 03 0. 14 0. 10 0. 06 Adjpm Losspm Adjgro Lev Rnoa Roe 0. 54 0. 08 0. 21 -0. 07 0. 21 0. 28 0. 38 0. 14 0. 60 0. 59 0. 29 -0. 20 -0. 07 0. 04 -0. 01 0. 06 -0. 01 0. 05 0. 15 -0. 03 0. 06 -0. 04 -0. 14 0. 26 0. 06 -0. 17 0. 54 0. 55 0. 26 0. 06 -0. 03 0. 32 0. 28 0. 26 0. 04 0. 04 -0. 01 0. 10 0. 09 -0. 35 -0. 16 0. 02 -0. 12 -0. 02 0. 51 0. 07 -0. 24 0. 75 0. 32 0. 50 0. 38 0. 07 -0. 12 0. 66 0. 06 -0. 10 0. 09 -0. 23 -0. 03 -0. 6 Rd 0. 17 0. 08 0. 19 0. 11 0. 03 -0. 05 -0. 02 -0. 27 0. 03 -0. 03 0. 47 0. 50 0. 04 0. 15 0. 28 Indpb 0. 33 Adjpm 0. 59 0. 09 Losspm 0. 06 0. 29 Adjgro 0. 22 Lev -0. 03 -0. 07 Rnoa 0. 54 0. 22 0. 48 Roe 0. 23 Rd 0. 09 0. 24 5. Empirical Results 5. 1 MODEL ESTIMATION Table 3 presents the results of annual cross-sectional regressions for each year from 1982 to 1998. The dependen t variable is the enterprise-value-tosales ratio (EVS). The eight independent variables are as described in the previous section. Table values represent estimated coefficients, with accompanying p-values presented in parentheses. Reported in the right columns are adjusted r-squares and the number of observations per year. The last two rows report the average coefficient for each variable, as well as a Newey-West autocorrelation adjusted t-statisticon the mean of the time series of annual estimated coefficients. The results from this table indicate that a consistently high proportion of the cross-sectional variation in the EVS ratio is captured by the eight explanatory variables. The annual adjusted r-squares average 72. 2%, and range from a low of 66. 1% to a high of 76. 5%. The strongest six explanaRnoa, nd RD) have the same tory variables (Indevs,Adjpm,Losspm, Adjgro, directional sign in each of 17 annual regressions, and are individually significant at less than 1%. Indpbis positively correlated with EVS in 11 out of 17 years, and is significant at the 5% level. Controlling for Indpb,book WHO IS MY PEER? TABLE 3 Annual EstimationRegressions Warranted for Enterprise-Value-to-Sales This table reports the res ults from the following annual estimation regression: 8 421 EVSi,t = at + j=1 jtCj,i,t + Li,t where the dependent variable, EVS,is the enterprise value to sales ratio as ofJune 30th of each year. The eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of EVSbased on two-digit SIC codes; Indpbis the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio; Adjpmis the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, is where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspm Adjpm indicator variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgrois the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the industry average; Lev is long-term debt scaled by book equity; Rnoa is operating profit as a percent of net operating assets; and Rd is RD expense as a percentage of sales. P-values are provided in parentheses. The last row represents the time-series average coefficients along with Newey-Westautocorrelation corrected t-statistics. The adjusted r-square (r-sq) and number of firms (# obs) are also reported. Year Intercept 1982 -0. 0623 (0. 13 5) 1983 -0. 0883 (0. 121) 1984 0. 0192 (0. 699) 1985 0. 1337 (0. 002) 1986 0. 0225 (0. 706) 1987 0. 1899 (0. 007) 1988 0. 1774 (0. 0) 1989 -0. 0455 (0. 347) 1990 0. 1083 (0. 027) 1991 0. 2321 (0. 00) 1992 0. 2064 Indevs 1. 2643 (0. 00) 1. 3531 (0. 00) 1. 2778 (0. 00) 1. 2231 (0. 00) 1. 3202 (0. 00) 1. 0908 (0. 00) 1. 0759 (0. 00) 1. 1264 (0. 00) 1. 1263 (0. 00) 1. 0740 (0. 00) 0. 8277 1. 0169 (0. 00) 1. 0027 (0. 00) 1. 0355 (0. 00) 1. 1690 (0. 00) 1. 1714 (0. 00) 1. 0157 (0. 00) 1. 1277 (0. 00) Indpb 0. 1648 (0. 00) -0. 0301 (0. 342) -0. 0015 (0. 964) -0. 0152 (0. 604) 0. 0047 (0. 856) -0. 0324 (0. 339) -0. 0097 (0. 63) 0. 0828 (0. 00) 0. 0322 (0. 019) 0. 0256 (0. 079) 0. 1150 0. 0579 (0. 097) 0. 0027 (0. 913) -0. 0211 (0. 512) 0. 0430 (0. 141) 0. 0366 (0. 264) 0. 1561 (0. 0) 0. 0360 (0. 031) Adjpm 6. 3052 (0. 00) 8. 1343 (0. 00) 6. 9266 (0. 00) 7. 9394 (0. 00) 9. 4308 (0. 00) 9. 8090 (0. 00) 8. 6458 (0. 00) 8. 4475 (0. 00) 9. 3485 (0. 00) 10. 4789 (0. 00) 10. 2810 Losspm -2. 8510 ( 0. 119) -5. 3800 (0. 00) -4. 2894 (0. 00) -4. 0951 (0. 00) -6. 2424 (0. 00) -6. 8296 (0. 00) -6. 9959 (0. 00) -5. 3691 (0. 00) -6. 0607 (0. 00) -6. 9779 (0. 00) -7. 9414 Adjgro 0. 0117 (0. 00) 0. 0392 (0. 00) 0. 0209 (0. 00) 0. 0177 (0. 00) 0. 0316 (0. 00) 0. 0363 (0. 00) 0. 0267 (0. 00) 0. 0225 (0. 00) 0. 0346 (0. 00) 0. 0316 (0. 00) 0. 0329 Lev 0. 0665 (0. 007) 0. 1414 (0. 00) 0. 0707 (0. 012) 0. 0238 (0. 351) -0. 0246 (0. 325) 0. 608 (0. 035) 0. 0228 (0. 27) 0. 0143 (0. 409) -0. 0381 (0. 065) -0. 0430 (0. 06) -0. 0567 Rnoa -0. 0091 (0. 00) -0. 0049 (0. 004) -0. 0088 (0. 00) -0. 0089 (0. 00) -0. 0080 (0. 00) -0. 0041 (0. 014) -0. 0054 (0. 00) -0. 0032 (0. 01) -0. 0037 (0. 005) -0. 0053 (0. 00) -0. 0037 Rd 0. 0194 (0. 00) 0. 0463 (0. 00) 0. 0197 (0. 00) 0. 0153 (0. 00) 0. 0118 (0. 01) 0. 0319 (0. 00) 0. 0281 (0. 00) 0. 0127 (0. 00) 0. 0191 (0. 00) 0. 0134 (0. 00) 0. 0157 0. 0253 (0. 00) 0. 0254 (0. 00) 0. 0680 (0. 00) 0. 0244 (0. 00) 0. 0313 (0. 00) 0. 0229 (0. 00) 0. 0253 (0. 00) R-sq # Obs 74. 40 741 70. 80 73. 45 74. 66 71. 11 66. 84 75. 44 74. 58 73. 54 76. 45 71. 63 71. 1 748 771 797 799 856 787 813 829 855 902 978 (0. 00) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 All 0. 1811 (0. 004) 0. 2698 (0. 00) 0. 3148 (0. 00) 0. 0713 (0. 249) 0. 1192 (0. 048) -0. 0269 (0. 683) 0. 1072 (0. 007) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 004) (0. 008) (0. 00) 11. 4266 -6. 4058 (0. 00) (0. 00) 10. 6165 -7. 1717 (0. 00) (0. 00) 11. 9432 -9. 2245 (0. 00) (0. 00) 11. 3311-10. 6464 (0. 00) (0. 00) 12. 5771 -7. 5521 (0. 00) (0. 00) 13. 0309-10. 1430 (0. 00) (0. 00) 9. 8043 -6. 7162 (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0333 -0. 0129 -0. 0045 (0. 00) (0. 515) (0. 00) 0. 0312 0. 0219 -0. 0060 (0. 00) (0. 202) (0. 00) 0. 0419 0. 0100 -0. 0069 (0. 00) (0. 618) (0. 0) 0. 0623 0. 0001 -0. 0023 (0. 00) (0. 996) (0. 121) 0. 0452 0. 0201 -0. 0032 (0. 00) (0. 278) (0. 011) 0. 0421 0. 0362 -0. 0006 (0. 00) (0. 069) (0. 637) 0. 0330 0. 0184 -0. 0052 (0. 00) (0. 235) (0. 00) 73. 19 1102 75. 37 1190 66. 05 1341 71. 75 1440 66. 65 1498 72. 19 16447 422 AND C. M. C. LEE s. BHOJRAJ leverage (Lev) is not significantly correlated with EVS. Collectively, these results show that growth, profitability, and risk factors are incrementally important in explaining EVSratios, even after controlling for industry means. Note that the estimated coefficients on several of the key explanatory variables change systematicallyover time. For example, the estimated coefficient on the industry adjusted profit margin (Adjpm)and forecasted growth rate (Adjgro)both trend upwards over time, while the coefficient on the industry enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (Indevs) shows some decline in recent years. These patterns imply that, in forecasting future EVSratios, the estimated coefficients from the most recent year is likely to perform better than a rolling average of past years. In subsequent analyses, we use the estimated coefficients from the prior years regression to forecast current years warranted multiple. Table 4 reports the results of annual cross-sectional regressions for the PB ratio. The explanatory variables are the same as for the EVS regression in table 3, except for the replacement of Rnoa with Roe. Table 4 shows that all the variables except Lev contribute significantly to the explanation of PB. The coefficient on Indps is reliably negative. Otherwise, the variables are correlated with PB in the same direction as expected. Overall, the model is less successful at explaining PB than at explaining EVS. Nevertheless, the average adjusted r-square is still 51. 2%, ranging from a low of 32. 8% to a high of 61. 0%. FUTURE RATIOS 5. 2 FORECASTING Recall that our goal is to identify comparable firms that will help us to forecast a target firms future price-to-sales multiples. In this section, we examine the efficacy of the warranted multiple approach in achieving this goal. Specifically, we examine the relation between a firms future EVS and PB ratios, and a number of ex ante measures based on alternative definitions of comparable firms. The key variables in this analysisare defined below. EVSn and PBn, where n = 0, 1, 2, and 3-The current, one-, two-, and three-year-ahead EVSand PB ratios. These are our dependent variables. IEVS and IPBThe harmonic mean of the industry EVS and PB ratios, respectively. Industry membership is defined in terms of two-digit SIC codes. ISEVSand ISPBThe harmonic mean of the actual EVSand PB ratios for the four firms from the same industry with the closest market capitalization. and WPBThe warranted EVSand PB ratios. These variables are WEVS computed using the estimated coefficients from the prior years regression (tables 3 and 4), and accounting or market-based variables from the current year. COMPActual EVS (or PB) ratio for the closest comparable firms. This variable is the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB) ratio of the four closest firms based on their warranted multiple. To construct this variable, WHO IS MY PEER? 423 TABLE 4 Price-to-Book Annual EstimationRegressions Warranted for This table reports the results from the following annual estimation regression: 8 PBi,t = at + E j=1 j,tCj,i,t + ti,t where the dependent variable, PB, is the price-to-book ratio as ofJune 30th of each year. The eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevsis the industry harmonic mean of EVSbased on two-digit SIC codes; Indpbis the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio; Adjpm is the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspmis AdjpmeDum, where Dum is 1 if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgrois the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the industry average; Lev is long-term debt scaled by book equity; Roe is net income before extraordinary items as a percent of book equity; and Rd is RD expense as a percentage of sales. The p-values are provided below each of the coefficients in parentheses. The last row represents the time-series average coefficients along with Newey-Westautocorrelation corrected t- statistics. The adjusted r-square (r-sq) and number of firms (# obs) are also reported. Year Intercept Indevs 1 982 -0. 2990 -0. 6056 (0. 00) (0. 00) 1983 -0. 3434 -0. 5129 (0. 00) (0. 001) 1984 -0. 1065 -0. 1806 (0. 143) (0. 099) 1985 -0. 3518 -0. 2882 (0. 00) (0. 09) 1986 0. 0998 -0. 3548 (0. 319) (0. 005) 1987 0. 0632 -0. 6468 (0. 584) (0. 00) 1988 0. 0568 -0. 5150 (0. 566) (0. 00) 1989 -0. 3306 -0. 5790 (0. 001) (0. 00) 1990 -0. 4592 -0. 9002 (0. 00) (0. 00) 1991 0. 0459 -0. 9010 (0. 613) (0. 00) 0. 1797 -0. 6645 1992 (0. 098) (0. 00) 1993 0. 2426 -0. 5925 (0. 111) (0. 00) 1994 -0. 0187 -0. 4753 1995 -0. 3095 (0. 008) 1996 -0. 0713 (0. 569) 1997 0. 1104 (0. 402) 1998 0. 0247 (0. 87) All -0. 0863 (0. 169) -0. 2491 (0. 00) -0. 3475 (0. 00) -0. 3565 (0. 00) -0. 3666 (0. 00) -0. 5021 (0. 00) Indpb 1. 1601 (0. 00) 1. 1696 (0. 00) 0. 9401 (0. 00) 1. 0448 (0. 00) 0. 9866 (0. 00) 1. 0956 (0. 00) 0. 8393 (0. 00) 1. 269 (0. 00) 1. 3508 (0. 00) 1. 0963 (0. 00) 1. 0051 (0. 00) 0. 7907 (0. 00) 1. 0234 0. 9481 (0. 00) 1. 0319 (0. 00) 0. 8816 (0. 00) 1. 0553 (0. 00) 1. 0321 (0. 00) Adjpm Losspm 2. 0331 -6. 2544 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 2891-11. 9301 (0. 00) (0. 00) 2. 0887 -5. 9880 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 0154 -8. 6571 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 6912 -6. 4419 (0. 00) (0. 00) 6. 0189 -9. 8553 (0. 00) (0. 00) 2. 0184 -9. 9218 (0. 00) (0. 00) 2. 6023-15. 3872 (0. 00) (0. 00) 1. 9280-10. 8096 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 0820-10. 7620 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 5272-12. 3146 (0. 00) (0. 00) 1. 6280-13. 7791 (0. 005) (0. 00) 3. 1253 -9. 8989 4. 3329 -9,7318 (0. 00) (0. 00) 4. 0730-13. 0282 (0. 00) (0. 0) 3. 8790-13. 5652 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 7902 -7. 1481 (0. 00) (0. 00) 3. 1837-10. 3220 (0. 00) (0. 00) Adjgro 0. 0371 (0. 00) 0. 1147 (0. 00) 0. 0527 (0. 00) 0. 0568 (0. 00) 0. 0883 (0. 00) 0. 0881 (0. 00) 0. 0694 (0. 00) 0. 0576 (0. 00) 0. 0815 (0. 00) 0. 0744 (0. 00) 0. 0781 (0. 00) 0. 0939 (0. 00) 0. 0834 Lev Roe -0. 2245 0. 0402 (0. 00) (0. 00) -0. 1545 0. 0541 (0. 01) (0. 00) -0. 2302 0. 0397 (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0585 -0. 2694 (0. 00) (0. 00) -0. 3075 0. 0542 (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0583 0. 0459 (0. 221) (0. 00) -0. 0675 0. 066 6 (0. 083) (0. 00) -0. 0474 0. 0574 (0. 176) (0. 00) -0. 0663 0. 0644 (0. 073) (0. 00) 0. 0683 -0. 1227 (0. 001) (0. 00) 0. 018 0. 0593 (0. 969) (0. 00) 0. 1131 0. 0828 (0. 02) (0. 00) 0. 1650 0. 0521 0. 0735 (0. 00) 0. 0649 (0. 00) 0. 0837 (0. 00) 0. 0674 (0. 00) 0. 0608 (0. 00) Rd 0. 0418 (0. 00) 0. 0627 (0. 00) 0. 0314 (0. 00) 0. 0013 (0. 845) 0. 0053 (0. 528) 0. 0323 (0. 001) 0. 0266 (0. 001) 0. 0111 (0. 122) 0. 0144 (0. 08) -0. 0052 (0. 477) 0. 0203 (0. 007) 0. 0468 (0. 00) 0. 0436 0. 0742 (0. 00) 0. 0147 (0. 133) 0. 0248 (0. 006) 0. 0341 (0. 00) 0. 0282 (0. 00) R-sq # Obs 55. 78 832 60. 99 57. 83 59. 15 56. 55 852 319 956 954 52. 97 1019 54. 15 52. 19 940 999 53. 16 1023 54. 88 1041 48. 51 1089 46. 82 1188 44. 96 1349 53. 52 1447 42. 76 1628 43. 00 1723 32. 2 1828 51. 18 19187 (0. 881) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00oo)(0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0908 0. 0409 (0. 284) (0. 00) 0. 1221 0. 1303 (0. 00) (0. 006) 0. 0948 0. 1596 (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0852 0. 2276 (0. 00) (0. 00) 0. 0805 -0. 0349 (0. 00) (0. 511) 424 s. BHOJRAJAND C. M. C. LEE we rank all the firms each year on the basis of their WEVS(or WPB), and compute the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB) for these firms. ICOMPActual EVS(or PB) ratio for the closest comparable firms within the industry. This variable is the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB) ratio of the four firms within the industrywith the closest warranted multiple. Essentially, this is the COMP variable with the firms constrained to come from the same industry. In short, we compute five different EVS (or PB) measures for each firm based on alternative methods of selecting comparable firms. IEVS and ISEVS(or, IPB and ISPB) correspond to prior studies that control for industry membership and firm size. The other measures incorporate risk, profitability, and growth characteristics beyond industry and size controls. We then examine their relative power in forecasting future EVS and PB ratios. As an illustration, Appendix C presents selection details for Guidant Corporation (GDT), a manufacturer of medical devices. This appendix illustrates the set of firms in the same two-digit SIC code, which are identified as peers of Guidant based on data as of April 30, 2001. Panel A reports the Panel B reports the closest firms based six closest firms based on WEVS, on WPB. We reviewed this list with a professional analyst who covers this sector. She agreed with most of the selections but questioned the absence of St. Jude Medical Devices (STJ), which she regarded as a natural peer. She agreed with our choices, however, after we discussed the profitability, growth, and risk characteristics of STJ in comparison to those of the firms listed. Table 5 reports the results for a series of forecasting regressions. In panel A, the dependent variable is EVSn, and in panel B, the dependent variable is PBn; where n = 0, 1, 2, 3, indicates the number of years into the future. In each case, we regress the future market multiple on various ex ante measures based on alternative definitions of comparable firms. 14 The table values represent the estimated coefficient for each variable averaged across 14 (n= 3) to 17 (n= 0) annual cross-sectional regressions. The bottom row reports the average adjusted r-square of the annual regressions for each model. These results show that the harmonic mean of the industry-matched firms explains 17. 5% (three-year-ahead) to 22. 9% (current year) of the crosssectional variation in future EVSratios. Including the mean EVS ratio from the closest four firms matched on size increases the adjusted r-squaresonly marginally, so that collectively IEVSand ISEVSexplain 18% to 23% of the variation in future EVSratios. These results confirm prior evidence on the usefulness of industry-based comparable firms. However, they also show that 14Even for the current year (n= 0), the warranted multiples are based on estimated coefficients from the prior years regression. Therefore, the models that involve warranted multiples are all forecasting regressions. TABLE 5 Prediction Regressions This table provides average estimated coefficients from the following prediction regressions: + EVSi,t+k = at + s j= j, tCji,t + I-i,t ES PBi,t+k = at + j=1 where k =0, 1, 2, 3. In Panel A, the dependent variable is the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (EVS). I ratio (PB). The expanatory variables are: IEVS,the harmonic mean of the industry EVSbased on cur the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on size after controlling for using the coefficients derived from last years estimation regressions and current year accounting and and ICOMP,the harmonic mean of the the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS; after controlling for industry. The variables for Panel B are defined analogously, replacing EVSwith P coefficients from annual cross-sectional regressions. The bottom row reports the average adjusted r-sq Panel A: Enterprise-value-to-sales Currentyear EVS 0. 00 Inter 0. 24 0. 06 0. 00 0. 22 IEVS 1. 19 0. 08 -0. 27 -0. 26 1. 02 0. 16 0. 14 0. 16 0. 13 ISEVS COMP 0. 89 0. 16 0. 98 0. 83 WEVS 0. 33 ICOMP r-sq 22. 94 23. 46 54. 71 61. 68 62. 99 Panel B: Book-value-to-sales Current year PB 0. 07 -0. 06 -0. 07 Inter 0. 40 0. 5 IPB 1. 04 1. 19 0. 26 -0. 09 -0. 07 0. 07 ISPB 0. 16 0. 11 0. 10 0. 81 0. 35 COMP 0. 77 0. 71 WPB 0. 44 ICOMP r-sq 11. 80 12. 34 35. 21 41. 94 43. 20 One year ahead EVS 0. 01 0. 01 0. 07 0. 23 1. 05 0. 16 -0. 17 -0. 16 0. 14 0. 14 0. 12 0. 12 0. 83 0. 13 0. 80 0. 93 0. 27 21. 24 46. 14 51. 97 53. 23 One year ahead PB 0. 40 0. 15 0. 04 1. 00 0. 38 0. 12 0. 18 0. 14 0. 13 0. 65 0. 29 0. 59 8. 02 19. 91 22. 94 0. 24 1. 19 0. 27 1. 18 Two year ah 0. 0. 25 1. 06 0. 0. 0. 13 0. 20. 75 18. 37 18. 79 40. 0. 46 1. 17 0. 05 0. 12 0. 10 0. 51 0. 40 23. 38 0. 57 1. 16 Two year a 0. 50 0. 0. 96 0. 0. 0. 21 0. 7. 62 5. 01 5. 47 12. 426 S. BHOJRAJAND C. M. C. LEE he valuation accuracy of industry-based EVS ratios leaves much to be desired. In fact, industry-size based comparable firms explain less than 20% of the variation in two-year-aheadEVSratios. The predictive power of the model increases sharply with the inclusion of variables based on the warranted EVSratio (WEVS). average, a model that On includes IEVS,ISEVS,and COMPexplains over 40% of the cross-sectional variation in two-ye ar-ahead EVS ratios. Including WEVSin the model increases the average adjusted r-square on the two-year-aheadregressions to the actual WEVS ratio 45. 5%. Moreover, even after controlling for WEVS, of the closest comparable firms (COMPor ICOMP)is incrementally useful in predicting future EVSratios. It appears that comparable firms selected on the basis of their WEVS adds to the prediction of future EVSratios even after controlling for WEVS itself. COMPand ICOMPyield similar results. A model that includes IEVS,ISEVS,WEVS, ICOMPexplains between 63. 0% and (current year) and 43. 1% (three-year-ahead) of the variation in future EVS ratios. 5 Panel B reports forecasting regressions for PB. Compared to EVS,a much smaller proportion of the variation in PB is captured by these models. In the current year, the combination of IPB and ISPB explains only 12. 3% of the variation in PB. The inclusion of WPBand ICOMPincreases the adjusted r-square to 43. 2%. In future years, the explanatory power of all the models declines sharply. However, over all forecast horizons, models based on warranted multiples explain more than twice the variation in future PB ratios as compared to the industry-size matched model. The rapid decay in the explanatory power of the PB model is a possible concern with these results. Either PB ratios are difficult to forecast, or our model is missing some key forecasting variables. To shed light on this issue, we report below the serial correlation in annual EVSand PB ratios. Table values in the chart below are average Pearson correlation coefficients between the current years ratio, and the same ratio one, two, or three years later. Average Correlation Coefficient EVS1 EVSO PBO 0. 87 EVS2 0. 79 EVS3 0. 73 PB1 0. 72 PB2 0. 56 PB3 0. 44 These results show that with a one-year lag, EVSis serially correlated at 0. 7, suggesting an r-square of around 76%. With a three-year lag, EVSis serially correlated at 0. 73, suggesting an r-square of 53%. Similarly,with a one-year lag, PB is serially c orrelated at 0. 72, suggesting an r-square of 52%. With 5 We also conducted year-by-year analysis to examine the stability of these results over time. We find that a model that includes IEVS,ISEVS,WEVS, and ICOMPis extremely consistent in predicting future EVSratios. All four variables are incrementally important in predicting future EVSratios in each fore

Company Law consultancy Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Company Law consultancy - Case Study Example They do not appear to have done this. Perhaps the company is on the look out for better information from concept to delivery. Whatever may be the reason, Sam and Paul, as majority shareholders, are not using the right way of handling business situations. The action against Larry cannot be seen in isolation because other minority shareholders, that is, Carl, Mark and Jennifer too have their own problems with Sam and Paul. Thus, there is the possibility that the action against Larry is just a tip in the iceberg of Sam and Paul's strong-arm policy aimed at disciplinary measures or removal of the minority shareholders. Sam and Paul have also not talked to Larry and given him the opportunity to explain his position. Sam and Paul have simply come to the conclusion that it is not possible to carry on with Larry because his service has proved expensive. Hence, in Sam and Paul's view, the company has to discontinue with Larry's services. Nonetheless, Averno Ltd is an established corporation. A corporation is described as a person in a political capacity created by law, to endure perpetually. For non-binding external actions or transactions, corporations enjoy the same latitude as private individuals. But it is in the internal affairs that one sees advantage or disadvantages in the corporation. Sam and Paul's actions do not appear to augur well for Averno. Larry now has the legal option to file a suit as minority shareholder in accordance with the rule in Foss versus Harbottle (A summary of the law on minority shareholder protection) Under the case of Foss versus Harbottle, Larry can file a suit as representing Averno Ltd and carry the case to its logical end. There appears to be undue haste on the part of Sam and Paul to have signed an exclusive contract with Megabit Consultancy Ltd. In the first place, they have not adhered to the important provision of its Articles of Association. Secondly, they have placed themselves precariously in a situation where they could be jumping from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. There is no mention about Megabit's rates. Obviously, their rates are attractive as compared to Larry's rates. Nonetheless, the fact that Larry is a shareholder in Averno does not seem to have made any impression on Sam and Paul. It is pertinent to note that Sam and Paul ought to have signed up with Megabit after consulting Larry. There is a clause in the Articles of Association that mentions Larry is the consultant for information technology in Averno. Sam and Paul ought to suitably amend this c lause after calling a special meeting. If the company means business and wants to excel in the sphere of information technology be it networking, web designing, databases, maintenance, application, projects, or procurement, then it must follow the rules and ensure that the relevant point is amended in its Articles of Association (ITC - The Information Technology Consultancy). Sam and Paul must call a meeting of the board and have a special resolution passed to the effect that Larry's services are not needed anymore. It remains to be seen how they wish to induct Megabit.

Basketball Point Guard Training Program Research Paper

Basketball Point Guard Training Program - Research Paper Example which they are able to perform different actions but also must consider all those actions that are required to develop their performance on continuous basis (Hatfield & Brody, n. d.). Conversely, outcome goals are mainly concerned with the end results that the athletes desire to achieve. It has been apparently observed that outcome goals are closely associated with process goals. The process goals are considered to be the paths that lead the athletes to achieve the positive outcomes (Hatfield & Brody, n. d.). The athletes should divide the goals into such activities that can be easily achieved as short-term goals. The achievement of these goals will certainly make the training programs interesting as well as boost the confidence of the athletes by a greater extent. On the other hand, long term goals rely upon the successful achievement of short-term goals. In this regard, failure to achieve short term goals will ultimately lead towards collapse in accomplishing long-term goals (Hatfield & Brody, n. d.). Training is regarded to be important aspect for any athletes that sharpens and develops necessary qualities as well as skills in order to render outstanding performances particularly in the sports arena. Athletes become more efficient and skillful only when they are provided with quality training program. In relation to basketball training program, it has been observed that it is quite difficult for a basketball team to succeed in any competition without a strong point guard. Any basket ball teams greatly rely upon point guards for their success in the competition. Point guards often act as a catalyst between the teammates and their likely performances to attain success. The prime objective of point guard training program is to develop certain skills of the athletes like dribbling, outside shooting, conditioning, passing and faking skills for achieving highest performance during the competitions (Special Olympics Nova Scotia, 2007). The point guard also called

Cantaloupe Description Essay Example for Free

Cantaloupe Description Essay The Cantaloupe At first glance, the cantaloupe looks round and light grayish-tan, with a hint of green. From afar it looks round and plain, about the size of a peewee soccer ball. On approach, the circular shape is less perfect with subtle dents and bumps all around. Surrounding the sphere shaped fruit are light tan lines like a dense city map with all the streets intertwining and curving around without any significant pattern, not geometric like gridlines. On the surface, there are small matchbook sized patches color the skin, some more yellow and other patches that are darker green. A particular indention looks like the fruit might have laid on a rock on the ground while it was growing. One end, where the flower might have once been, is the palest of yellow circles. On the opposite edge, the stubby vestige of a stem remains. This dried up nub is the brown and shriveled, slightly indented from the rest of the globe. Surrounding the stem is a dark circle of hunter green. Picking it up from the counter, the weight of this globular object seems significantly heavier than it looks, like a mini bowling ball. Despite the volume, it feels that the weight is not solid which is proven by the hollow sound the fruit makes when tapped, like patting a child on the head. The delineated lines feel like webbing and give the fruit a rough feel, but it’s not an uncomfortable roughness. The experience is somewhere in between a prickly cactus and a furry peach. At this point my mind starts to wander. Should I cut it open now or wait? Should I take a break? I look outside at the fat flakes of snow coming down outside and remind myself to get back to the task at hand. There is no resentment or anger. I look again at this object I have assigned myself to detail. When I am at a loss as to how to describe something in particular my mind wandering happens more frequently. I continue to focus my attention back to the cantaloupe as soon as I realize I’ve been distracted. I hold the cantaloupe to my eye. There is a faint line of brownish green that runs through the net-like lines covering the fruit. Some of the spaces between the lines look like parks because they’re darker green, while others ook grey like the concrete of a parking lot. My mind wanders again and I start to look to see if there are any recognizable maps in squiggles. I see a roundabout that reminds me of an intersection in England and another resembles the neighborhood where I grew up. The intertwining layers of the lines remind me of overgrown vines on a wall covering another layer of skin. The underneath layer has the vague look of green splotches, almost veins, like the streaks that run through blue cheese. I thump the cantaloupe again. It substitutes as a drum to make a tune. Apparently it has different thicknesses inside because the sound it makes when you knock it on the end is a higher pitch than when you rap it in the middle. One spot must be particularly thick because the sound is more substantial. Rubbing the skin makes the same sound as rubbing your hands together on a dry winter day. I try to make other noises using the produce, but intuition tells me that the only way to get another sound is to drop it on the floor. I’m not willing to do that. Before cutting into the orb, I notice a whiff of eau-de grocery store produce aisle a bit past its sell-by date. The smell isn’t strong and it’s only when I touch the fruit to my nose that I smell this. I then sniff each different area of the outer layer and notice that where the flower once might have been the smell is much stronger and sweeter. I scratch my finger nails on the rough skin, but it doesn’t affect the scent the way it would with an orange or lemon. It’s time to cut into the orb. Even as the knife makes the first gouge, clear pale orange juice escapes. I lick my fingers and find the sweet taste refreshing and different. Although the juice is the color of a Satsuma mandarin or a commercial worthy carrot, it tastes nothing like either. Slicing the melon in half, the cantaloupe now resembles a geode, with a plain outside and a brightly colored exotic inside. It’s filled with seeds and goo in the center. The slimy innards resemble the finest angel hair pasta, but instead of being the color of regular noodles, they are varying shades of orange, some even translucent. I carve out this gooey inside and the sweet smell now fills the air with its cloying tropical fermented flower mell. Friends who have been watching a movie in the other room come to see if they can have some, the smell having tempted them away from what they are doing. Ironic, because I’m no longer interested in the cantaloupe and ready to toss it into the composting bin. I send everyone away so that I can continue on. The meaty flesh isn’t too tough, nor is it too soft. I take a bite and let the flavor rush across my to ngue. The taste reminds me of summers on the farm eating the freshest fruits and vegetables straight out of the garden still warm from the sun. There’s a touch of salt in the taste, but the sweetness overpowers it. In spite the firm texture, the fruit feels soft and chewy and the volume of nectar is astounding. The tissue is softer and moister than the similar essence of a pumpkin and more compact than the inside of a fig. Squishing the orange flesh with my fingers, it all but dissolves into juice. What little remains is the finest of strings as soft as silk. I find a seed still attached, that I missed. The kernel is a flat oval with semi-pointed ends. Like a flat football with the air taken away, but miniscule in comparison. It’s almost as though the surrounding fibrous slime is dissolving in the air as I watch. I break open a seed using my fingernail. It’s soft and waxy, not much there. I take a wedge of the sliced cantaloupe and look at the difference between the skin and the edible meat. Like a rainbow, the color changes from thick rind on the outside to the orange moist, fleshy core on the inside. Like the color spectrum, the differences in shades are subtle, but quick. A yellow stratum is the most predominant, but considering the layer in question is less than an eighth of an inch thick, this golden subcutaneous layer isn’t very big. I make sure there isn’t anything I’ve overlooked and to check my notes for missing descriptive words. I’m shocked to look at the clock and see that more time has passed than I would have expected. I went several hours without checking my watch; something I can only do when I’m not bored. Learning to look beyond the obvious is something I already knew how to do. I enjoy observing people and watching facial expressions for meaning. What I’m not good at it is sitting still and holding my attention for long periods of time. Exercises like this help to train my brain to â€Å"settle own, focus, and catch up† as local monologuist Josh Kornbluth says. While I had to make a few self directed corrections along the way, I was fairly pleased that I was able to block out a significant amount of what was going on with family and friends in the other rooms and outdoors. Yes, there were a few times that my attention wandered, but I was back on track in seco nds rather than hours or days. The reward at the end was to finish a paper I was happy with and to share the small remainder of the cantaloupe with my friends while on a weekend away. Mission accomplished!

The Slaughter of the English Language Essay -- Collapse of the English

In George Orwell’s essay â€Å"Politics of the English Language†, Orwell argues that the English language is in ruins. What is to blame for the collapse of the English language? The answer simply lies within technology. Technology in many ways has a adverse effect on the English language. Young kids are now allowed to carry cell phones with texting being their main source of communication. Often times these kids butcher the English language through their text messages. They use improper grammar and often times do not punctuate at all. Technology such as texting, facebook and instant messaging work hand in had in the destruction of the English language. Technology has not made people more efficient, but rather has made them lazy. Text messaging is a technology that contributes to the great decline of the English language. The English language is often butchered through the use of text messaging. In Orwell’s essay, he states â€Å"An effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form† (446). Main stream society is too lazy to correct any grammar and punctuation in a text message, leading to the assumption that it is not important, after all it is only a text message. Thus, this shows the English language is in decline, when society is to lazy to take a few extra second to correct spelling and punctuation errors . One would not be able to write the same way in an academic essay as they would in a text message. If one would do so, that student would receive an F. No English teacher, or for that matter any teacher, would be thrilled nor impressed reading an essay filled with these common texting erors. Another way society is contributing to the deterioration of the English language... ...ine because of technological advances. As Orwell states in his essay â€Å"Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly† (446). These bad habit are speaking in text speak instead of proper English. In past centuries we have fought great battles, now we unite against new enemy, the enemy of improper English. Works Cited Brockenbrough, Martha. â€Å"Does IM Make U Dum.† The Concious Reader.Ed. Caroline Shrobes, Michael Shrugrue, Marc DiPaolo, Christian J. Matuschek. Longman: Boston, 2006.148-151. Print. Orwell, George. â€Å"Politics and the English Language.† The Concious Reader. Ed. Caroline Shrobes, Michael Shrugrue, Marc DiPaolo, Christian J. Matuschek. Longman: Boston, 2006. 445-447. Print.

Domains Of Culture: Technology And Material Essay

1. There’s no arguing that technology has helped make life easier. Americans use it every day to communicate, travel, build and entertain themselves, but is it all positive? Does technology replace that which makes us human? Is technology harmful to the preservation of cultural values? Think about these questions as the effects of technology and material on American culture are explored. In the first point, the production element of technology and material will be covered, how it’s thought up and how it’s made. Then in the second point, the adoption aspect of technology and material will be examined, with how it ends up in the hands of everyone and becomes a part of American culture. 2. To start off, how is new technology produced? To produce a new technology there first has to be a need, a need to do something faster or more efficiently. A surprising number of technologies in use in the United States have come from the research of defense contractors employed by the US military. A majority of American use the Global Positioning System (GPS) to get directions on how to get from point A to B. This started out as a military technology designed to guide troops, as well as ensure missiles and artillery hit their targets. Not everyone may know that the internet, which is well known and used, started out in the 1960s as a military communication system. It was designed so the enemy couldn’t take out computer communication networks from a single point. The first computer was developed for the US military during World War II; it took up 2,000 square feet and was used for ballistics calculationsi. There have also been technological advances from civilians widely used today, such as the telephone. The telephone, invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, forever changed how Americans communicate as a society by providing instant communication without being face to face. 3. The motivations for the second element, adoption; are very different from production. When a new technology has been invented and produced, it is then up to private companies to sell the product to the public. This is how technology is adopted into American culture. Before a new technology is sold to the public, private companies m ust consider the perceived benefit,  the ease of use, immediacy of benefits, price, riskiness and return on investmentii. The motivations of private companies to make a profit are the primary factor considered in whether or not a new technology will be released, regardless of how much the technology is wanted or needed. There is no formal voting process that takes place for the public to decide what new technologies will be implemented into society. It all relies on private companies to sell them if they believe they can make money. The argument can be made though that the material and technology that consumers buy is them directly voting on what is adopted into American culture. 4. Arriving at the conclusion; It was explained how the production of technology and material has affected American culture. There have been numerous advances in technology that promise to make life easier and change how Americans operate as a culture. It was also explained how technology and material is adopted into society. Private companies are the primary force and they are motivated only by the promise to make a profit. As technology continues to advance and make lives easier, society is increasingly faced with the growing dilemma that was posed in the beginning. Will technology erode away cultural values and take away from what makes humans who they are?

Fast Food and Healthy Food

Life today is not like how it was before. Along time ago, people ate foods that were field with balanced amount of nutrients value. Not with chemicals, preservatives, artificial colors and flavors which are known as Fast Foods. Long days of working and training effects our choices for food, a meal from nearest fast food restaurant becomes most appealing idea. Most of people who eat junk food more frequent don't know its bad effect on their body which can be prevented if they use more healthy alternatives . Although, we consume both of them as food, yet they are majorly different. Fast food remains extremely popular, despite their unhealthy impact to our body. However, there are many reasons to try to make healthier choices. Eating junk food as a primary method of nourishment will lead to diseases and illness because your body is being deprived from its needed nutrias. While, by eating healthy you are strengthening your body and giving it proper nutrients to defend it in a time of illness . While, Obesity, diabetic, Hypertension, cancer and other chronic diseases are highly related to fast food. It has more calories on average meal than healthy food do, leading to greater weight gain and illnesses. It is important to watch carefully what you eat, especially at fast food restaurant. Knowing the nutritional content is very important. Beware of the processed and fast foods that have long ingredient list you can hardly pronounce Junk foods are loaded with lots of sugar, salt and worst types of fat . Healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grain, lean meat and fish provides a balanced amount of nutrients . They are by definition nutrient-rich, with vitamins, Minerals and fiber that benefit your body. If you are trying your best to be healthy it is essential to find food that will treat your body well . Healthy food helps you focused and make you more productive. It provide not only energy source for your body , but also makes your body performs in its optimum . Because, junk foods are heavily full with fat they slow down your metabolism and make you lazy . it will leave you tired and do not supply your body with proper nutrient needed to function adequate . Thus, the next time you think about burger, pizza or chips just think about the harm they can do to your body over a period of time. Do not give in temptation instead eat fruits and vegetable, nourish your body with vitamins and fiber. Remember if you eat well you will feel and look well.

Social Interaction Problems in USA

Social Interaction Problems in USA Industrial revolution has caused major changes not only in the life style and living standards of the people but also in the realm of social interaction. These changes carry both positive and negative impacts on social interaction. For example the increase in use of mobile phone should not be seen as an enhancement to social interactions but also carries some negative attributes. It has led to nomadic intimacy and cyberspace virtual interaction. Depending on how we use them, they always carry some consequences (Andersen, Taylor 114).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Social Interaction Problems in USA specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More There are different interaction problems that have been encountered in USA. They include; poverty, homelessness, urban crime, race and ethnicity and macro level problems. These factors have always made the relations between people become anomic. Poverty is a major factor in this case which divides people into social strata; poor or rich. According to the Census Bureau, poverty has been on the rise in the recent past where about 2.6 million people slipped into poverty (United States Conference of Mayors 22). This factor has led formation of social groups the Hispanians and the blacks, where the blacks are the most hit by poverty. In this case there is little communication between the poor and the rich. The poor retire to a culture of poverty which is passed from generation to generation thus making it hard to change. They feel negative, hopeless, inferior and powerless. Studies have revealed that poor families which experience more stress are always allied to violence in families (Bassuk et al. 25). Homelessness is another factor which has led to a series of social interaction problems. Extreme poverty leads to homelessness, and this is mostly experienced by young children. Its inception comes with health problems and poor nutrition. Although it has reduced considerab ly in many states in USA, a lasting solution is yet to be found (United States Conference of Mayors 13). 1.6 million American children or one in 45 of them are homeless in the year 2010 (Bassuk et al. 32). Forty percent of these children are age six and under. It hurts both children and other people in many ways including; brain development, stress, parenting, school readiness and health and well being. According to researchers, homeless families experience many social interaction problems as compared to stable ones (Bassuk et al. 33).Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Urban crime is another major cause of social interaction problems both to the offender and the offended. These crimes include; rape, theft, robbery and murder. Victimization in USA is also a major problem which divides people into groups. Blacks are being victimized more than whites and this high rate of i ncarceration of blacks has led to social interaction problems between the two groups (Ferrante 182). The blacks’ families have fewer males who are supposed to take leadership roles. Crime rate is directly linked to drug use. Most of those people who have been found to have committed crime are drug users. Ethnicity is the classification of people into groups basing on cultural and physical characteristics while race is categorization of people basing on anatomical traits. American ethnic groups include; American Indians, Latinos, Chinese, African Americans, Hispanians and European Americans. Race and Ethnicity has affected the provision of various social services in the country (Ferrante 214). For example, there are disparities in access to health care and education. Placing people into various groups makes the social interaction across these groups impossible. As a result, problems arise. Macro level problems originate from social structure, social processes of the people and their interrelationships. For instance the industrialization effects on older people’s status (Andersen, Margaret Taylor 112). Most of the people in USA are currently working and they usually don’t have extra time for face to face socialization with their relatives. Instead, most have opted to rely on cyberspace interaction which provides them with virtual interaction. Old people and young children suffer most because they are taken to care institutions where they will not have time to interact with their relatives. Virtual interaction is a dangerous thing because they can be created imaginatively. In conclusion, the recent industrial revolution has solved some problems of social interaction and created more (Andersen, Margaret Taylor 115). Each invention has its own weaknesses and strengths.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Social Interaction Problems in USA specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Andersen , Margaret L., Taylor Howard F. Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2005. Bassuk, Ellen L., Murphy, Christina., Coupe, Thompson N., Kenney, Rachael R., Beach, Anne C. State report card on child homelessness: America’s youngest outcasts 2010Â  . 2011. Retrieved from National Center on Family homelessness website Ferrante, Joan. Sociology: A Global Perspective. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2012. United States Conference of Mayors (2009, December). Hunger and homelessness survey: A status report on hunger and homelessness in America’s cities: A 27-city survey. 2011.7

E-marketing Business Plan for GlassInfinity Essay

E-marketing Business Plan for GlassInfinity - Essay Example With the unique nature of this product design, there is the further recognition that Glass Infinity must develop a strong e-marketing business plan. The following constitutes a strategic e-marketing plan to increase online sales, social media awareness, and online advertising reach. The first part of the advertising strategy aimed to increase the product’s social media awareness. While social media are often recognized as constituting a phenomenon for youth culture, research has demonstrated that adults increasingly engage in social networking Lennon & Curran (2012). Lennon & Curran (2012) examined social network users among individuals over 50. This research revealed that these individuals primarily engage in social media as a means of enjoyment. This is contrasted with younger audiences who more fully implement the functional characteristics of these platforms. Today’s most prominent social networking platforms are Facebook and Google’s own Google Plus. ... In this way, the company would develop a platform that individuals could quickly download to their networking account. This platform would use Google Maps and Project Glass to allow individuals to explore major land areas and actually meet up with other people from their friend’s list. The individuals then could post some of their findings to their social networking wall, indicating that they met at a major landmark using Project Infinity. For instance, two people could choose to explore downtown Paris with the interactive eye-wear. As the messages about meet-ups are posted to the online wall, other participants will be encouraged to join, ultimately leading to the real world purchase of this interactive eye-wear. The second part of the strategy aimed to increase the product’s advertising reach. Because of Google’s unique position as the Internet’s primary search engine, this strategic report recognizes that the company can leverage its position in this re alm to promote the product’s advertising reach. In increasing advertising reach, this report recommends that Google consider giving Glass Infinity privileged spots in search engine searches. In addition to leveraging search engine optimization (SEO), this report considers that the company should implement unique methods of advertising. One prominent method that is supported by recent research is blogging. Balaque & Valck (2013) indicates that blogging is an effective tool for expanding advertising outreach when it is implemented in controlled contexts. Goldsmith (1999) considered that high credibility spokespeople markedly improve customer’s belief in the specific product. Rather than targeting one or two celebrities, this